We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bluebird Care (Lewes) on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Bluebird Care (Lewes), you can give feedback on this service.
Bluebird Care Lewes is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. On the day of the inspection, the service was supporting 70 people with a range of health and social care needs, such as a physical disability, sensory impairment or people living with dementia. Support was tailored according to people’s assessed needs within the context of people’s individual preferences and lifestyles to help people to live and maintain independent lives and remain in their homes. Not everyone using Bluebird Care Lewes receives the regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service:
We found areas of outstanding practice in the effectiveness of the care provided by Bluebird Care Lewes. The use of pioneering technology used in a person centred way ensured that people received outstandingly effective care that met their current and changing needs.
The provider had developed innovative and effective systems that promoted people’s health, improved their independence and enabled them to live in their own home for as long as possible.
People were happy with the care they received, felt relaxed with staff and told us they were treated with kindness. They said they felt safe and well supported. One person told us, “Yes, they are lovely, they get me up safely and put me to bed safely. They are careful when getting me from bed to chair”.
People’s independence was promoted and told us their needs were met. They told us that they had a regular team of care staff who arrived on time and knew them well. A relative told us, “Overall, I am genuinely impressed, to keep [my relative] at home knowing they are wonderful carers is all we could wish for”.
Sufficient staff were available to ensure people's wellbeing and safety was protected. A robust recruitment and selection process was also in place.
People felt they were offered choice in the way their care was delivered and that they had no concerns around their dignity and privacy in their own homes being respected. One person told us, “They make sure I have everything I need. They are polite, punctual and do their job well. They are respectful and keep the place tidy”.
Staff had received training considered essential by the provider and feedback from people indicated that they knew the best way to care for people in line with their needs and preferences. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The provider had systems of quality assurance to measure and monitor the standard of the service and drive improvement. These systems also supported people to stay safe by assessing and mitigating risks, ensuring that people were cared for in a person-centred way and that the provider learned from any mistakes.
People told us they thought the service was well managed and they received high quality care that met their needs and improved their wellbeing from dedicated and enthusiastic staff. One person told us, “I don’t know what I’d do without them, they are marvellous”.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 8 November 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the intelligence we receive about this home and plan to inspect in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated Good.
The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People who used the service said they were safe. Staff knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and what to do if they thought someone was at risk. However, some risk assessments that had been completed were not always detailed enough, and appropriate management plans could not be put in place. Where risks to an individual had been identified, these were effectively managed. People were supported to take their medicines safely when needed, but there was a risk medicines records would not be accurate at all times.
People gave us very positive feedback about the care they received. Comments included; “Bluebird carers are very good indeed. I have no worries at all with them, they are very polite very caring very affectionate and they show it” and “they’re all very good without exception”. People were able to express their views and preferences about their care and these were acted on. People were treated with respect and their privacy was protected. One person said; “they do treat me with the greatest respect and have always preserved my dignity”.
People’s care needs were regularly assessed and people and those important to them were involved in making decisions about their care. People’s support needs were assessed and care plans were developed to details how these needs should be met. Care plans were detailed which helped staff provide the individual care people needed. People knew how to make a complaint or raise concerns with the registered manager and told us these were acted on when they did so. There was an appropriate complaints system in place and any complaints had been thoroughly investigated.
People were asked for their consent appropriately and staff and the registered manager had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). This legislation provides a legal framework for acting and making decisions on behalf of adults who lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves. Care workers knew that any decisions made on someone else behalf must be in their best interests.
There were enough staff to meet people’s care needs and staff had regular training, supervision and appraisal to support them. Staff gave positive feedback about the quality of the training and people who use the service said staff were well trained. Comments included; “the staff from Bluebird are certainly correctly trained” and “carers are all adequately trained as far as I'm concerned”. Appropriate pre-employment checks had been completed before staff began working for the provider.
Incidents and accidents were thoroughly investigated and action taken to reduce the risk of them being repeated. The registered manager and staff understood the importance of learning from incidents so they could make improvements to the service.
People who needed it were supported to eat and drink enough and staff knew what to do if they thought someone was at risk of malnutrition or dehydration. People’s day to day health care needs were met.
The service was well led by a dedicated registered manager and management team. There was a commitment to provide high quality care which was tailored to people’s individual choices and preferences. Feedback form people who use the service, relatives and staff was positive, and staff felt well motivated and supported in their role.
The provider carried out regular audits to ensure people experienced safe and good quality care. People were asked for their feedback about the quality of the service, and where areas for improvement were identified appropriate action was taken.
The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they had received and with the staff team. One person who used the service told us, "I am very satisfied with the service. I have two very good carers who are reliable and professional.' A relative of a person who used the service told us, "The service has always been good. They come on time and are so kind to my relative. The carers chat to them and my relative has no complaints about the care whatsoever.'
We saw evidence that the provider had effective recruitment and selection procedures in place to ensure that staff were of good character and qualified to do their job.
We looked at staffing levels and saw that the service had enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.
The service had quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided, and to gain the views of the people who used the service.
The service also had a system in place to effectively deal with comments and complaints.
During our visit we spoke with five people who used the service and five staff members; these were one of the directors, the care manager and three care workers.
We also took information from other sources to help us understand the views of people who used the service, which included a satisfaction survey and meeting minutes.
The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received and with the staff team.
One person who used the service told us 'I'm very satisfied with my carer and Bluebird Care, I can't fault them'. Another person who used the service we spoke with told us 'I'm pleased with what they do [the care workers] and they do what I want'.
Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the support needs of the people who used the service. One member of staff we spoke with told us 'If I was a client, I would go for Bluebird Care, we really accommodate client's needs'.